HF 

H3Z. 


UC-NRLF 


SB 


EEb 


oo 
oo 

in 
o 


"Hawaiian  IcGiprociti]  f  leatg  llundcrs. 


IMMEDIATE  ABROGATION  A  NATIONAL  REQUIREMENT, 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  12,  1886. 

To  1'iiifrd  States  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  assembled: 

First:  There  was  no  commercial  advantage  for  the  United  States 
to  gain  by  negotiating  the  treaty  of  1875-76  ;  that  the  trade  of  the 
Sandwich  Islands  had  long  been  controlled  by  Boston  merchants 
prior  to  that  time,  and  could  have  been  increased  by  them  ad  libi- 
tum without  this  Government  subsidy,  is  too  well  known  to  require 
proof.  The  United  States  Government  knew  this,  Daniel  Web- 
ster's statement  upon  this  topic  as  Secretary  of  State  in  1842,  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  being  as  follows : 

Mr.  Webster  said:  "Considering  therefore  that  the  United  States 
ess  so  very  large  a  share  of  the  intercourse  with  those  islands, 
it  is  deemed  not  unfit  to  make  the  declaration  that  the  Government 
seeks  nevertheless  no  peculiar  advantages,  no  exclusive  control 
over  the  Hawaiian  Government;"  and  these  views  were  acted  upon 
when  Daniel  Webster  made  the  treat}^  of  1849  with  Hawaii,  to 
which  I  shall  refer  later. 

Charles  Nordoff,  in  his  volume  of  travels  in  California,  Oregon, 
and  the  Sandwich  Islands  prior  to  the  treaty  of  1875-76,  says  :  "It 
is  plain  the  island  trade  is  so  largely  in  our  hands  that  no  other 
nation  can  be  said  to  dispute  it  with  us;  if  our  flag  flew  over 
Honolulu  we  could  hardly  expect  to  have  a  more  complete  monopoly 
of  Hawaiian  commerce  than  we  now  enjoy  ;  moreover,  almost  all 
the  sugar  plantations  and  the  greater  number  of  stock  farms  are 
owned  by  Americans ;  what  the  islands  are,"  continues  Nordhoff. 
"  they  are  because  of  American  enterprise  and  Boston  capital,  which 
established  the  sugar  culture  and  other  important  industries." 

There  being  no  commercial  advantage  for  the  United  States  to  gain 
by  the  treaty  of  1875-76,  it  is  evident  that  the  treaty  was  a  job  put  up 
by  American  merchants  who  controlled  Sandwich  Islands  commerce, 
and  captured  a  good-natured  ring  "to  march  at  the  head  of  their 
triumphant  procession  through  the  country  to  advocate  the  treaty 
at  our  expense."  Although  our  market  for  Hawaiian  sugar  was 


and  is  the  best  and  the  principal  market  they  had  or  can  have, 
treaty  or  no  treaty,  those  enterprising  merchants  wanted  the  duty 
on  Hawaiian  sugar  in  their  own  pockets,  and  got  it  by  the  treaty  at 
public  expense. 

This  snug  little  enterprise  of  1875-76,  which  transferred  three 
cents  or  more  per  pound  duty  from  the  United  States  Treasury  to 
the  pockets  of  its  projectors,  quickly  assumed  gigantic  proportions. 
The  records  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  furnish  evidence  about 
Hawaiian  sugars  as  follows  : 

Quantities  and  values  of  dutiable  Ha- 
waiian 8n<t<ir  imported  front,  1868  to 
1876,  inclusive, 

Year.               Pounds.  Dollars. 

1808 18,241,01)2  95(5,898 

1X09 10,314,482  1,087,433 

1870 14,010,181  901,045 

1871 15,018,409  935,90!) 

1X72 15, 357, 7X  I  923,441 


Quantities   and  ralucx  of  free, 

sugar   imported  from  1X77  f<>  18S5,  in- 
clusive. 

Year.                  Pounds.  Dollar?. 

1877 30,042,081  2,108.47:1 

1878 30,308,  :-J28  2,274,430 

1879 41,09:!.  od'.)  2,811.1'.):: 

1880 01,550,324  4,135,487 

1881 76,909,207  4,927,021 


1873 1. ",,74:1.1-4!,        9:54,824    1882 106,181,858      6,918,084 

1874 l:!,.yr.->,074         740,786    1883 114,132,070      7,::4<).o:;:', 


1X75 17,888,000        938, 070 

1876 20,978,374       1,051,987 


1884 125,148,680      7,108,292 

1885 109,052,783      8,198,144 


The  Hawaiian  Islands  contain  about  4,355,000  acres  of  land  ; 
80,000  acres — the  lowest  Spreckels  estimate — to  150,000  acres  or 
more  are  available  sugar  lands ;  the  average  yield  is  five  tons  of 
sugar  per  acre  of  cane  every  eighteen  months,  or  3J  tons  per  an- 
num ;  80,000  acres  will  produce  266,000  tons  of  2,240  pounds,  or 
595,840,000  pounds  per  annum  ;  95,000  tons  of  sugar  were  produced 
in  1885  against  about  65,000  tons  in  1884.  At  this  pro  Tata  of 
increase  a  product  of  266,000  tons  per  annum  will  be  reached  in 
five  years. 

But  we  are  informed  by  Mr.  Spalding,  a  treaty  advocate,  in  his 
pamphlet  of  1882,  that "  it  is  supposed  that  no  more  than  from  100,000 
to  150,000  acres  in  all  the  islands  can  be  used  for  the  culture  of  the 
sugar  cane."  If  we  split  the  difference  and  say  125.000  acres,  the 
product  would  reach  416,666  tons  of  2,240  pounds  or  933,331,840 
pounds  per  annum  in  about  ten  years  at  the  present  pro  rata  of  in- 
crease. Even  this  does  not  limit  the  capacity  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  known  to  be  "  the  finest  sugar-producing  country  in  the 
world." 

According  to  official  records  B.  S.,  Feb.  26,  '86,  Hawaiian  sugars 
averaged  93°  crystals  in  1884-'S5  and  about  13  D.  S.  in  color. 
According  to  hundreds  of  tests  made  for  this  writer  they  averaged 
94°  crystals  and  above  13  D.  S.  in  color.  Taking  the  official 
average,  93°,  the  present  duty  on  which  is  2.12  cts.  per  lb.,  and 
when  above  13  D.  S.  in  color  2.75  cts.  per  lb.,  and  when  above  16 


D.  S.  in  color  3  cts.  per  lb.,  we  find  the  oflicial  report  of  loss  of  duty 
on  Hawaiian  sugars  imported  in  1S81  and  1885  to  be  as  follows: 

l')4,<;i. •>,!!)'.>  ll»s.,  uvrr:i<;v  (.i:!°,     at  ±12  cts.  p.-r  11.. *  1, 1  •-'.">, S  l'_> 

(.>7,ls7.7lo  Ibs.,  above  l-'i  I).  S..at  2.7-")  cts.  per  lb. 2,672,662 

•J.'.i'.is..V,l  ll.s.,  alu.vr  IfJD.  S.,at  3       cts.  per  lh. 7'.», '.»"><; 


±il,soi,.Jf;;;  Ibs.,  av.  \r.}°  and  18  D.  S.     Loss,  2J  cts.  per  lb $6,878,460 

The  actual  average  grade  of  Hawaiian  sugars  imported  in  1SS4-'S5 
was,  however,  known  to  be  above  13  D.  S.  and  the  loss  of  duty  under 
the  1883  tariff  in  18S4-'85  was  2.75  cts.  per  lb.  on  294,801,463  Ibs., 
or  £8,107,070.  Prior  to  the  tariff  of  March  3, 1883,  the  average  loss 
of  duty  per  pound  was  greater.  At  present  rates  the  annual  loss  of 
duty  on  an  annual  Hawaiian  product  from  80,000  acres  would  ap- 
proximate 2.75  cts.  per  lb.  on  595,840,000  Ibs.,  or  $16,385,000,  and 
on  an  annual  product  from  125,000  acres  the  annual  loss  of  duty 
would  approximate  2.75  cts.  per  lb.  on  933,331,840  Ibs.,  or  $25,666,625. 
Towards  this'  condition  the  nation  is  hastened  by  the  Hawaiian 
treaty. 

With  a  normal  capacity  for  producing  beet,  cane,  and  sorghum 
sugar  sufficient  for  home  consumption,  with  modern  inventions 
which  secure  ten  (10)  per  cent,  of  the  sucrose  contained  in  beets, 
cane,  and  sorghum,  and  the  knowledge  that  in  1861  Louisiana  pro- 
duced 528,300,000  Ibs.  of  cane  sugar,  and  is  again  increasing  her 
production,  while  in  1885  we  obtained  in  quantities  at  Alvarado, 
Cal.,  190  Ibs.  of  refined  sugar  per  ton  of  beets  and  in  the  West  100 
Ibs.  of  sugar  per  ton  of  sorghum,  it  would  be  monstrous  to  thus 
overslaugh  our  struggling  sugar  industries  by  continuing  the  treaty. 

During  eight  years  ending  June  30,  1884,  under  the  treaty  the 
duty  lost  on  sugar  amounted  to  more  than  our  exports  to  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  as  follows :  Total  imports  of  merchandise,  $42,- 
072,264 ;  total  exports  of  domestic  merchandise,  $20,162,798;  sugars, 
imports,  consumed,  $37,623,013.  Duty  lost  on  sugar,  at  least  60  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  $22,573,806.  Of  the  $42,072,264  of  merchandise 
imported  only  $364,994  was  dutiable.  Thus,  during  eight  years,  we 
received  less  duty  in  the  aggregate  from  Hawaiian  merchandise  im- 
ported than  we  annually  remit  on  Hawaiian  rice. 

Our  trade  with  Hawaii  in  the  year  ended  June  30,  1885,  was  as 
follows:  Total  imports  for  consumption,  $8,857,497;  total  exports 
domestic  merchandise,  $2,709,573;  sugar  imports  consumed,  $8,198,- 
144;  duty  lost  on  actual  grades  imported,  at  least  60  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  or  $4,918,886.  Of  the  total  imports  of  merchandise  from 
Hawaii,  in  1885,  $8,817,067  was  free  of  duty ;  in  the  year  ended 
June  30,  1876,  we  imported  from  Hawaii  $1,376,681  merchandise, 


of  which  $1,184,610  was  dutiable,  whereas  our  imports  from  Hawaii 
in  1885  amounted  to  $8,857,497,  of  which  only  $40,430  of  merchan- 
dise was  dutiable. 

Our  imports  of  merchandise  from  Hawaii  increased  from  $8,238,- 
461  in  1883  to  $8,857,497  in  1885,  while  our  exports  of  merchan- 
dise to  Hawaii  decreased  from  $3,683,460  in  1883  to  $2,709,573  in 
1885;  it  is  therefore  evident  that  the  maximum  capacity  of 
the  Hawaiians  for  consuming  our  merchandise  has  been  reached, 
and  that  the  capacity  of  Hawaii  for  producing  "free"  sugar  not 
only  costs  the  people  additional  millions  of  dollars  annually, 
but  is  sufficient  to  destroy  our  sugar  producing  and  refining  indus- 
tries and  cripple  our  commerce  with  all  other  sugar-producing 
countries,  unless  the  treaty  in  its  present  iniquitous  form  is  ended 
speedily. 

Second  :  There  was  no  political  advantage  to  be  gained  by  the 
treaty  of  1875-76.  Mr.  Nordhoff,  in  his  volume  of  travels  (prior  to 
the  treaty)  in  Hawaii,  &c.,  before  quoted  herein,  says  :  "  Our  political 
preponderance  in  the  islands  is  as  complete  as  our  commercial." 
Even  had  this  not  been  the  case  the  Webster  treaty  of  1849,  made 
with  the  King  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  which  is  still  in  force,  covers 
the  entire  political  ground,  and,  as  regards  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
gives  the  United  States  (in  common  with  England)  security  for  their 
Pacific  Ocean  commerce,  and  Pacific  Ocean  harbors  for  their  navy 
whenever  they  have  any. 

It  has  been  well  said  that,  under  the  Webster-Hawaii  treaty  of 
1849,  "it  seems  almost  too  clear  to  admit  of  argument  that  any  at- 
tempt to  lease  or  otherwise  dispose  of,  or  create  any  lien  upon,  any 
port,  or  grant  any  special  privileges  or  rights  of  use  therein  to  any 
other  power,  State,  or  Government,  would  be  a  palpable  violation  of 
the  terms  of  this  (1849)  treaty."  Thus  article  IV  of  the  reciprocity 
treaty  of  1875  is  simply  humbug  ;  the  king  had  no  power  to  lease, 
dispose  of,  or  create  any  lien  upon  any  port,  harbor,  or  territory,  or 
grant  any  special  privileges  to  the  United  States  in  1875,  and  has 
no  such  power  at  the  present  time. 

By  the  treaty  of  1849  all  the  rights  and  advantages  this  nation 
has  a  right  to  or  can  claim  in  the  Islands  are  secured  and  will  be 
retained  if  the  reciprocity  treaty  of  1875-76  should  be  terminated  ; 
besides,  in  1851  Great  Britain  concluded  a  treaty  with  Hawaii  in 
terms  similar  to  the  Webster  treaty  of  1849,  but  made  it  perpetual 
except  as  regards  duties  on  imports.  Not  only  is  the  reciprocity 
treaty  of  no  avail  politically,  but  any  cession  of  Pearl  river  to  the 
United  States  by  King  Kalakaua  and  any  attempt  of  the  United 
States  to  fortify  or  occupy  Pearl  River  or  any  other  Hawaiian  port  as 


a  naval  station  would  be  rightly  resisted  by  Great  Britain  as  a  vio- 
lation of  the  treaty  of  1851. 

Charles  Nordhoff,  in  his  volume  of  travels  in  Hawaii,  etc.,  from 
which  I  have  already  quoted,  says:  "As  I  write,  a  negotiation  has 
been  opened  with  the  United  States  Government  for  the  purpose  of 
offering  us  Pearl  river  in  exchange  for  a  reciprocity  treaty,"  but 
Pearl  river  was  neither  ceded  to  us  nor  heard  from  again  until 
abrogation  was  favored  by  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House 
of  Representatives,  this  session,  and  the  recent  advent  of  the  new 
treaty  job  at  the  doors  of  the  United  States  Senate. 

Pearl  river  is  situated  on  the  south  side  of  the  Island  of  Oahu; 
the  entrance  to  the  river  is  about  six  miles  west  by  north  of  Hono- 
lula,  the  capital  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands;  being  narrow  and  abrupt 
the  river  can  be  easily  blockaded  effectually;  a  bar  of  solid  rock 
crosses  the  entrance,  which  would  have  to  be  removed  to  enable 
vessels  of  any  size  to  enter  the  river  safely.  Millions  of  dollars 
would  be  required  to  render  Pearl  river  of  any  value  to  any  nation 
as  a  naval  station. 

In  the  new  Hawaiian  treaty  recently  formulated  by  treaty  ad- 
vocates with  Senatorial  aid,  for  Senate  action  to  counteract  any 
movement  of  the  House  towards  abrogation  of  the  present  treaty,  it 
is  proposed  to  usurp  the  prerogative  of  the  House,  and  not  only 
adjust  but  barter  away  the  customs  revenue  of  the  country  for  Pearl 
river  harbor,  2,100  miles  from  home,  to  which  we  can  have  no  right 
that  Great  Britain  is  not  entitled  to  share,  and  which,  if  accepted, 
would  cost  this  country  millions  of  dollars  to  open  out  and  fortify, 
while  our  great  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports  and  harbors  are  at  the 
mercy  of  almost  any  nation. 

The  rumor  that  a  syndicate  of  European  capitalists  propose  to 
buy  the  Hawaiian  Islands  for  $10,000,000,  i.  e.,  to  loan  the  kingdom 
that  sum  and  gobble  the  islands  for  payment,  is  another  Pearl  river 
dodge  intended  to  influence  Congress.  Cursory  consideration  of 
the  topic  presents  reasons  why  the  Spreckels  and  Pacific  coast  free- 
sugar  rings  would  give  double  the  money  named  for  the  islands 
which  they  already  virtually  control,  to  say  nothing  of  the  existing 
treaty  bars  of  1849  and  1851. 

Third:  Not  only  was  the  job  treaty  of  1875-76  a  fraud  which 
has  culminated  in  a  gigantic  public  swindle,  but  the  provisions 
and  language  of  the  treaty  have  been  outrageously  subverted. 
The  language  of  the  treaty  is  clear  as  to  what  sugars  are  entitled 
to  free  entry,  to  wit:  "Muscovado,  brown,  and  all  other  unrefined 
sugar,"  but  was  subtly  qualified  by  adding  "meaning  hereby  the 
grades  of  sugar  heretofore  commonly  imported  from  the  Hawaiian 


6 

Islands,  and  now  known  in  the  markets  of  San  Francisco  and  Port- 
land as  Sandwich  Island  sugar." 

More  or  less  clayed  and  clarified — in  other  words,  refined — sugars, 
known  as  Sandwich  Island  sugars,  were  imported  from  those  islands 
prior  to  the  treaty;  this  feet  led  to  the  free  admission  of  sugar  re- 
fined and  grained  in  vacuum  pans  and  centrifugals,  from  08°  to 
99.9°  pure  crystals,  shadowed  outwardly  in  order  not  to  ex- 
ceed No.  20  D.  S.  in  color,  albeit  white  sugars  above  No.  20  D.  S. 
have  also  been  entered  free  of  duty  under  the  above  qualification 
subterfuge. 

Large  quantities  of  Hawaiian  sugars  arrive  in  San  Francisco  that 
polarize  99°  and  over  ;  the  crystals  are  colored  outwardly  below  20 
D.  S.,  and  these  refined  sugars  are  fraudulently  entered  free  of  duty  ; 
thousands  of  tons  of  Hawaiian  sugars  testing  96°  to  99.6°,  in  some 
cases  100°,  pure  crystals,  having  only  a  film  of  outside  coloring, 
have  been  entered  free  as  "  Muscovado,  brown,  and  unrefined  (or 
raw)  sugar."  The  writer  has  hundreds  of  samples  of  Hawaiian 
sugars  intrinsically  equal  to  white  granulated  sugars,  some  of  which 
samples  polarize  higher  than  hard  refined  sugars. 

Although  Hawaiian  sugars  are  admitted  free  of  duty,  the  remitted 
duty  is  added  to  the  first  cost  of  such  sugars  sent  to  this  country, 
while  the  sugars  are  sold  to  California  refiners  atparity  of  value  with 
duty-paid  sugars,  and  two  to  three  cents  per  pound  above  New  York 
prices  of  refined  sugars  has  been  regularly  filched  from  Pacific 
coast  consumers  of  duty-free  sugars. 

This  writer  was  recently  informed  by  an  ex-member  of  King 
Kalakaua's  cabinet  that  he  had  "seen  Canton  and  Philippine  Island 
sugars  in  mats  transferred  from  vessels  at  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
without  landing,  to  schooners  which,  when  thus  loaded,  cleared  for 
San  Francisco."  Certainly  the  opportunity  for  such  treachery  is  sup- 
plied by  the  sugar  treaty,  and  merchants  of  Hawaii  are  no  more  ex- 
empt from  the  allurements  of  illicit  sugar  traffic  than  are  merchants 
in  other  countries,  notwithstanding  the  servile  report  in  1883,  made 
by  the  commission  appointed  by  the  late  Secretary  Folger  to  in- 
vestigate treaty  frauds,  which  declares  everything  lovely,  but  savors 
of  Spreckel's  dictation  and  missionary  intrigue  throughout. 

The  following  is  from  testimony  at  the  hearing  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreig.i  Affairs,  H.  R.,  March  9,  1882  :  "My  opinion, 
based  upon  observation  (in  the  islands),  is  that  the  treaty  has  re- 
sulted in  the  demoralization  and  impoverishment  of  the  natives  to 
a  fearful  extent."  One  of  the  anonymous  writers  for  the  treaty 
recently  inadvertently  proved  that  the  Hawaiians  are  grossly  swin- 
dled for  our  profit;  although  they  sent  us  more  than  three  times  as 


much  as  they  bought  from  us,  we  are  told  for  buncombe  that  the 
Hawaiians  still  owe  us  millions.  Assuredly  such  a  treaty  should 
end  for  humanity  sake. 

The  Hawaiian  minister  to  the  United  States,  who  appears  in  an 
advertisement  in  the  Daily  Bulletin  of  Honolulu,  March  27,  1886,  as 
a  director  of  the  "  C.  Brewer  Co.  Honolulu,  Limited,  General  Mer- 
cantile and  Commission  Agents,"  represents  his  patron,  the  Sugar 
King  de  facto,  who  opposed  the  treaty  in  1875,  and  now,  with  millions 
gained  thereby  at  public  cost,  defends  it,  rather  than  his  legal  sov- 
ereign, Kalakaua,the  King  dejureoi  Hawaii,  who,  through  this  job- 
treaty  enterprise,  of  which  he  is  known  to  be  heart-sick,  has  become 
a  mere  nominal  king  with  a  nominal  kingdom,  uttererly  dependent 
upon  the  sugar  king  dynasty  and  the  new  California  sugar  ring, 
which,  with  reason,  claims  to  have  United  States  Senatorial  influence 
and  support.  • 

Whatever  advantages  our  Pacific  coast  shipping  and  other  local 
industries  or  the  people  of  Hawaii  may  have  derived  from  our  treaty 
of  commerce  with  Hawaii,  are  accomplished  facts,  and  will  remain 
so.  Having  been  dearly  bought  by  the  American  peophrthrough  an 
expensive  legislative  treaty  blunder,  they  are  nevertheless  perma- 
nent local  advantages  now  held  by  a  clique  of  sugar-food  monopo- 
lists, and  they  certainly  are  not  entitled  to  further  protection  of 
their  engagements  at  public  expense. 

Having  by  means  of  the  treaty  annually  fleeced  the  United  States 
Government  and  people  of  millions  of  dollars — having  robbed  Pacific 
coast  consumers  by  compelling  them  to  pay  for  duty-free  sugars 
two  and  a  half  to  three  cents  per  pound  above  New  York  prices  for 
duty-paid  sugars,  and  having  absorbed  or  impoverished  and  finan- 
cially enslaved  mostof  the  native  planters  of  Hawaii,  thereby  gaining 
control  of  the  king,  demoralizing  his  kingdom,  decimating  his  sub- 
jects, and  substituting  therefor  a  Chinese  colony — this,  stupendous 
job-treaty  enterprise,  which  enriches  a  few  sharp  traders  at  public 
cost  and  at  the  expense  of  our  home  industries,  should  be  terminated 
forthwith  by  Congress. 

It  is  known  that  large  sums  of  money  have  been  sent  to  Wash- 
ington to  prevent  abrogation  of  the  present  treaty,  and  failing  that 
to  secure  a  new  Senate  treaty.  Advocates  of  the  treaty  claim  to  rely 
upon  secured  Senatorial  influence  in  a  Republican  Senate  to  defeat 
the  action  of  a  Democratic  House,  and  thus,  against  public  interests* 
to  continue  this  treaty  monstrosity  or  perpetuate  the  evil  by  a  new 
treaty  device. 

It  is  also  known  that  a  Pacific  coast  combination  has  recently 
been  formed  between  the  railroad  companies,  the  American  re- 


8 

finery,  and  the  Hawaiian  planters.  The  amount  of  duty,  $5,000,000 
per  annum,  now  donated  by  this  country,  is  to  be  'divided  between 
the  aforesaid  parties,  and  the  movement,  it  is  alleged,  has  potent 
Senatorial  influence  not  entirely  unconnected  with  recent  control- 
ling investments  in  the  said  refinery. 

Thus,  between  the  reigning  Hawaiian  sugar  dynasty  and  the  new 
Pacific  coast  free-sugar  ring,  it  is  proposed  to  silence  the  United 
States  Congress  or  carry  that  body  in  favor  of  a  treaty  or  revenue 
measure  that  menaces  American  sugar  industries  and  dutiable  sugar 
commerce,  engenders  and  protects  revenue  frauds,  and  compels  the 
people  to  pay  enormous  annual  tribute  apparently  to  a  foreign  coun- 
try— in  reality  to  a  handful  of  Pacific  coast  sugar-food  monopolists 
who  maintain  an  army  of  claquers  and  other  emissaries  to  tempt 
legislators  and  infest  the  lobbies  and  halls  of  Congress. 

The  reciprocity  treaty  of  1875-76  is  a  tariff  and  revenue  measure 
that  "curtails  the  boundaries  within  which  revenues  arc  or  can  be 
raised,"  and  a  measure  that  "  regulates  foreign  and  domestic  com- 
merce." Thus  in  making  this  treaty  the  forever-inherent  power  and 
prerogative  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  originate  all  reve- 
nue bills,  and  of  Congress  to  regulate  foreign  and  domestic  com- 
merce, were  usurped  with  disastrous  results. 

Regardless  of  our  sugar-producing  industries,  of  justice  to  the 
people,  and  of  its  own  rights,  Congress  lias  calmly  suffered  this 
treaty  to  continue  its  ravages,  thus  sanctioning  a  gigantic  public 
abuse  for  the  sole  enrichment  of  Pacific  coast  monopolists  who, 
already  gorged  with  wealth,  employ  their  surplus  millions  about 
the  capital  of  the  nation  to  maintain  an  expensive  treaty  blunder, 
the  continuance  of  which  by  Congress  will  be  a  legislative  crime. 

Numerous  unimpeachable  statistical  exposures,  based  upon  ex- 
nort  kno\vlodo-o  and  official  ovidon™  of  Hawaiian  treaty  chicanery, 
have  been  presented  to  Congress  by  this  writer.  Will  Congress  per- 
form an  act  of  public  justice  by  the  speedy  enactment  of  the  bill 
to  abrogate  the  treaty  recently  approved  and  reported  to  the  House 
by  its  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  or  shall  legislative  justice 
be  subverted  or  silenced  by  the  mercenary  claquers  and  golden- 
coated  sophistries  of  Hawaiian  sugar  monopolists  and  national 
parasites,  who  boast  of  power  in  Congress  and  gobble  millions  of 
dollars  annually  by  the  treaty  at  the  expense  of  sixty  millions  of 
American  consumers,  producers,  and  tax-payers? 

HENKY  A.  BROWN, 
Ex-Special  Treasury  Agent,  Saxonville,  Mass. 


T.  M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED   FOR   FAILURE  TO   RETURN 
THIS   BOOK   ON   THE   DATE   DUE.    THE 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE 

OVERDUE.    T°    $1'°°    °N    THE    SEVENTH 


OCT   14  1944 


*€frt 


1952 


